1. The ad lumps Clinton with the losing Republican candidates. They all share a dislike of the presumptive Republican nominee. Do they belong to the same club of establishment politicians who are ruining the country?

2. The ad shows that Trump is disliked by the Republican establishment. But that is his appeal, not his flaw. Trump already “fired” the losers in the video who are attacking him. Do you believe anything you hear from a disgruntled employee who just got fired?

3. When you remind viewers how many big-name politicians Trump has defeated, it makes him seem stronger.

4. Democrats, independents, and even some Republicans will see that Trump is an “enemy of their enemy” and bond to him.

Nice analysis. I know when I watched the ad, I felt pulled toward Trump. I don't know if it was because of those 4 things or something else. An obvious something else — to me, anyway — is: They're all being so cruel to him that: 1. It makes me want to help Trump (I feel protective), 2. I feel like they're trying to hide something from me and trying to scare me away from thinking about something that, understood, would hurt them, and 3. They seem ridiculous and abnormal, not talking like mature politicians at all (they seem like a bunch of schoolkids whose game could be broken by a simple "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort).

93 comments:

I'd show pictures of the many people serve jail time for mishandling even one classified message. Then I would speak directly to FBI personnel and DOJ employees, telling them that thorough investigations will be launched as to why Hillary hasn't even been questioned in the two years that the emails have been investigated--using fresh lawyers to examine appropriate charges and prison sentences.

I reiterate. The purpose of the ad isn't about Trump or for the general. It's for the primary.

Hillary hasn't won the primary. She needs to win the primary. This ad pleased Democrats. Democrats who hate Trump. Gives them pleasure. The giggles. And it says to them, the primary is over, I've won. Bernie who?

This is her primary plan now. To pretend to be the choice of the Democrats until it's true.

Suddenly, it occurred to me why Scott Adams is in the tank for Trump. It is because Adams isn't a Republican. He's never been a Republican, and doesn't much like any Republicans, before, during or after Trump. Republicans are an alien race, a foreign culture to Adams.

Adams himself might admit to the foregoing.

Consequently, he knows nothing about Republican voters.

Newsflash, Scott Adams; that Hillary ad was aimed at people who very much liked one or more of the people featured in that ad, and who likely voted for one if them in opposition to Trump.

"Suddenly, it occurred to me why Scott Adams is in the tank for Trump. It is because Adams isn't a Republican. He's never been a Republican, and doesn't much like any Republicans, before, during or after Trump. Republicans are an alien race, a foreign culture to Adams.

Althouse: "They're all being so cruel to him that: 1. It makes me want to help Trump (I feel protective), 2. I feel like they're trying to hide something from me and trying to scare me away from thinking about something that, understood, would hurt them, and 3. They seem ridiculous and abnormal, not talking like mature politicians at all (they seem like a bunch of schoolkids whose game could be broken by a simple "I'm rubber, you're glue" retort)."

Postmodernism at its best--who cares what the truth is? It's all about how the words make you feel. Instead of asking whether Trump actually is a crazy, unstable, fascist, you support him because people are being so mean to him. And you're a highly educated voter who has some self-awareness! No wonder the world is going down the tubes.

Chuck, if the ad is meant to speak to Republicans then it probably is counterproductive to slap Hillary's ownership on it. It's as if the Clinton teams asked itself - how can we best undermine #nevertrump's messaging. Oh yes... let's coopt any Republicans who might lead it, and undermine their credibility with our target audience.

I have to agree with you Ann. I am supposed to trust and follow "that pile of losers"? Hillary also just points out that she is one of the "crowd" trying to beat him. Also, the ad makes her look juvenile. It is not a substantive ad but a playground "na na" ad. Looks small of her.

Postmodernism at its best--who cares what the truth is? It's all about how the words make you feel. Instead of asking whether Trump actually is a crazy, unstable, fascist, you support him because people are being so mean to him. And you're a highly educated voter who has some self-awareness! No wonder the world is going down the tubes.

5/5/16, 2:09 PM

You may be right that trump is crazy, unstable, etc., etc., etc. But he is not Clinton. I would crawl over broken glass to help get her not elected. If trump is the best that the Rs can come up with. So be it. That is the horse I am hitching to. May not like it but it is the only horse around...

Adams has a point (several) if we're talking about winning the nomination, but that contest is over.

The ad succeeds in a few ways. It keeps alive the divide between traditional and Trump Republicans. It reminds the anti-Trump why they never liked him. It reminds the pro-Trump (like Althouse?) that they resented attacks against Trump.

As a commercial running in general election swing states not yet inundated with ads, it introduces less obsessive watchers of the political scene to Trump in a highly unflattering way.

"Adams lists 4 things that ad does to our mind, none of which are things Hillary should want to do" Nah. Not "our mind." Not disaffected GOPers. Signaling to Dems and Dem-leaning women: see, even the evil Rethuglicans think he's evil. He's even eviler than they are. Which is evil. Don't be evil.

"They're all being so cruel to him that: 1. It makes me want to help Trump (I feel protective)" So when you affect your pose of cruel neutrality, are you actually trying to stir protective feelings?

oleh -It isn't commercial advertising. It is a regulated electioneering communication. There is no option to not put your name on it, or to slap someone else's name on it. You, as the proponent, must cop to it; with audio as well as video.

If you chafe at federal regulation of electioneering communications, take heart that the vast majority of Republicans agree with you. Only outliers in the party give lip service to more federal control of campaign finances.

I dislike that style of commentary/headlining but it seems pervasive now: "Watch X DESTROY Y in a priceless exchange," "Watch as N ANNIHILATES Z with a devastating attack," and so forth.

It's not exclusive to the Left but it seems like it started with people forwarding/trying to make viral Jon Stewart (and then Colbert and now John Oliver) snippets.

I mean, I though othering and eliminationist rhetoric were supposed to be bad!Well anyway it's not civility bullshit to point out how childish that style seems and to object. The characterization of Bill's wife's ad as "brutal" seems to be another example of the way that style misinforms.

Chuck said...Suddenly, it occurred to me why Scott Adams is in the tank for Trump. It is because Adams isn't a Republican. He's never been a Republican, and doesn't much like any Republicans, before, during or after Trump. Republicans are an alien race, a foreign culture to Adams.

Adams himself might admit to the foregoing.

Might admit, Chuck? Have you read any of Adams' posts? Of course he's not a Republican and of course he doesn't agree with lots of positions most Republicans hold! He's certainly a weird guy (not an insult) and I dont' think he's asserted that many people will think as he does, but his position as a non-Republican is given as a reason to trust his evaluation more (as an outsider looking "objectively"), not some shameful secret he's been trying to hide.

The SF Chronicle used brutal too: "Brutal Hillary Clinton montage scorches Donald Trump using GOP rivals' words against him". All the stories have different bylines, yet very similar headlines. Interesting.

You know damn well, that I am not a Democrat and that I have said previously that I will vote for the Republican nominee. I would never want to give any Trumpster any excuse for what I expect is going to happen to him in the fall.

I'm telling you about what I could feel as I took in the ad. I can look at my feelings analytically too, but that's what I'm doing when I tell you the ad pushed me toward Trump, not away. At least try to see what is happening to you and try to imagine what it might be doing to others.

The actual question of whether or not Trump is a worthy candidate is only indirectly related to the sights and sounds in the ad.

The SF Chronicle used brutal too: "Brutal Hillary Clinton montage scorches Donald Trump using GOP rivals' words against him". All the stories have different bylines, yet very similar headlines. Interesting."

And every left FB friend has posted it. I think it's time they all got together to fingerbang each other.

Yes of course Adams has been saying all along that he is some sort of non-political meta-messaging ninja. He says he's not a Republican, or a Democrat. Got it.

What he seems not to have figured out, that any political scientist and every national pollster would surely tell him, is that a Republican who shuts down 10 or 20 per cent of the base Republican vote, is toast.

The funny thing is that once again on the front page of the WAPO web site there are 7 headlines with Trump's name in them. This has been going on for weeks. Confirms the old saying about the papers: "say anything about me, just be sure to spell my name right".

Scott Adams certainly ads an interesting spin on Trump's activities. There is also an interesting article in the WSJ that states, among other things, that Trump has been planning this run since 2012 when Romney went down to ignominious defeat. Here.

Well, I'm anti-Tromp and I like the folks in the ad who castigate him (well, maybe not Linday Graham), but there's no way that ad would make me consider voting for Hillary!

On the other hand, if -- in accordance with my prediction -- Hillary! withdraws after the nomination for "reasons of health" (i.e., to escape indictment), and Biden is handed the Democrat nomination, I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for Slow Joe over Tromp. Tromp is that bad.

"You know damn well, that I am not a Democrat and that I have said previously that I will vote for the Republican nominee. I would never want to give any Trumpster any excuse for what I expect is going to happen to him in the fall."

Nobody knows anything of the kind. It's the Internet, where you're known by your words. Accordingly, the rational inference is that you and Simon are stone mobys. A bit more literate than than the usual mobs but a mobs, nevertheless.

NBC is about to air the Guccifer interview they have been sitting on for more than a months.

Reminds me of a Dennis Miller FB post regarding the terrorist Iphone.

"The FBI should give the terrorist I phone to Hillary so Putin can tell Trump what's on it."

This is just getting started, and all we seem to be hearing today is how its already over. For those rooting against Trump, isn't it to his advantage to make him the underdog? I'm sure that's exactly where he wants to be.

And Cracker; going only on my words alone -- since you don't know me, or my voting record, or my friends in the Republican National Lawyers Association, and you don't have a copy of my CV -- going just by what I have written in the Althouse blog comments pages going back to Scott Walker's first statewide election, there would be zero reason to presume that I had any sympathies for any Democrat.

Chuck said...What he seems not to have figured out, that any political scientist and every national pollster would surely tell him, is that a Republican who shuts down 10 or 20 per cent of the base Republican vote, is toast.

Well, we'll see, anyway. I will say all the Trump people who talk about how he's playing 3D chess and so far ahead do remind me of Excitable Andy (Sullivan) and his endless "meep meep" posts insisting that this or that Obama blunder was really a crafty move we mere mortals were too stupid to understand...

Yes, he can be crass. Yes, he sometimes spouts liberal positions in off-the-cuff conversation or speeches. Yes, he took a low road to defeat his rivals, at times, and whaddaya know, it worked!

Doesn't matter. He has Balls. If Romney had Balls, he'd be running for a second term today. More Balls probably would not have made a difference for McCain, but they could have helped. Trump says what's on his mind, without fear, and has not issued (to my knowledge) any formal apologies to anyone he's pissed off. Quite frankly, I like the positions on his campaign site. If he sticks to those once elected, he'll end up being a decent president. As good as Romney would have been? Maybe. As good as Reagan? Doubtful. As good as Bush? Better, I think.

Adams has a point (several) if we're talking about winning the nomination, but that contest is over.

The ad succeeds in a few ways. It keeps alive the divide between traditional and Trump Republicans. It reminds the anti-Trump why they never liked him. It reminds the pro-Trump (like Althouse?) that they resented attacks against Trump.

As a commercial running in general election swing states not yet inundated with ads, it introduces less obsessive watchers of the political scene to Trump in a highly unflattering way.

Being a poorly educated and low information voter, it would almost seem that Dems who hate republicans might like Trump because ta-da! he is not a Republican. Just like Scott Adams. These Dems, along with all the millions and millions and millions of voters already "in the tank" for Trump will destroy Hillary.

I dislike that style of commentary/headlining but it seems pervasive now: "Watch X DESTROY Y in a priceless exchange," "Watch as N ANNIHILATES Z with a devastating attack," and so forth.

On youtube most believers vs atheist debate videos seem be labeled "so and so DESTROYS atheist" or "so and so DESTROYS Christian" depending on the viewpoint of whoever put the video up.

And its not unusual to see the same video uploaded mutual times labeled as DESTROYING one side or the other depending on which side of the debate the uploader supports.

I don't think the ad helps or harms Trump.

I also don't think it is BRUTAL. Its pretty standard fare. I'm betting if we bothered to search we would find comparable videos from 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, etc. And if Trump thinks it will help him, he'll put out an ad where Bernie Sanders talks about Hillary being in the pocket of Wall Street and Big Banks'.

Most likely Mother Jones won't call that ad BRUTAL. It will be DECEITFUL and DISHONEST and MISLEADING.

The CNN poll that came out on Trump's victory dance day showing Hillary with a 13-point lead smells of taint. Recall that George Washington U. had a Battleground poll just about a week ago showing a 3-point race and Rasmussen two days later showed Trump up 2.

How does a 13-point trend-buster appear? With thumb to the scales.

Trump should hire his own pollsters to do a "poll" of their own. Fight thumbs with thumbs.

The Godfather said......On the other hand, if -- in accordance with my prediction -- Hillary! withdraws after the nomination for "reasons of health" (i.e., to escape indictment), and Biden is handed the Democrat nomination, ...

And if that happens, how many feminist Democrats will sit on their hands and not vote on election day? The creepy old Uncle Biden ads virtually write themselves.

The "Crawl over broken glass" phrase to vote against Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife is going to start appearing a lot more often. And I already see the phrase "Monica Lewinsky's ex-boyfriend's wife" appearing more in blog posts and comments, and even an occasional article.

Using the Professor's approach, my immediate reaction was that was a Hillary Oppo Research creation that pulled its punches to keep Trump from going Def Con 5 level response against her.

All it does is repeat his opponents Last Words at Speaker's Corner Marble Arch, which was the only place in England with total free speech granted to the condemned the day they were to be executed. The tradition continued for all speakers, but of course, only at the Free Speech location.

Trump can figure it out. He will put out Guccifer's linking Crooked Hillary to Sidney Blumethal who was on e-mails setting up for them both to profit from Obama's hit on Libya's Ghadafy and redirecting our weapons in Libya into ISIL hands in Syria.

So Ron Brown was murdered by the Clinton apparatchiks? Even from the tinfoil hat brigades of the Trump army, I'd expect better. Not from Trump himself, of course. Trump would probably have no hesitation in using Ron Brown, like the Obama birth certificate or Rafael Cruz and Oswald. It is rare thing indeed, when the public figure is deeper into the fever swamp than his anonymous backers in cyberspace.

My principal reaction to that ad was that Trump already won these arguments and a bunch of losers were engaged in sour grapes whining. This ad was not brutal. Hillary better get better if she wants to win.

"Undecided" voters don't start paying attention to the presidential campaign until after the conventions aside, Althouse 6 months out analysis is laughable at best and to be taken with a grain of salt.

Althouse, it may be hard, but please start pacing yourself. Like your buddy Trump says about older women ~ they tire easily and don't have the energy for the longgg haul. "We" want you here at the finish line to be able to crown your prince Donald!

traditionalguy said...Trump seems to know where the Government's bodies are buried, and is willing to use the Info instead of secretly blackmailing others with it.

This is a dangerous thing to do, say the families of Vince Foster and Ron Brown.

Okay. Forgive me, for questioning that bizarre conflation.

So now you can explain this, further bizarre, comment:Wait a minute Chuck. Who said anyone had those two unfortunates killed? Or are you assuming that happened from the evidence that that's exactly what happened.

I actually don't like this interchange at all. You make me want to wash my hands. I'd ask you straight up what you mean or intend by these weird comments, but I don't mush care about any answer.

"In an interview to appear on FOX Business Network’s (FBN) Wall Street Week this Friday at 8PM/ET, hosts Anthony Scaramucci and Gary Kaminsky speak with Doubleline Capital CEO Jeffrey Gundlach about the 2016 presidential election. When talking about Donald Trump Gundlach says, “I actually have been predicting a Trump presidency for months.” Gundlach went on to say, “Trump actually is a lot more like Ronald Reagan than people think. People say that he’s not really a conservative, but “Make America Great Again” is a very conservative concept.”"

I just watched what is supposed to by "Anonymous" threat to Monica Lewinski's ex-boyfriend's wife that's currently showing up in various spots. We know the FBI has a lot of her emails. Guccifer says her server was easy to crack. There's a real good chance that more then one group has ALL of them. And- What if someone took the time to capture all of Huma's emails? And the video also referenced the Clinton Foundation. Wonder just how hard a hacker group would have had to work to get into all their emails and financial information?

Someone will do a public dump of her emails. Question is, will it be the day before the Democrat convention, or the day after, or an October surprise? Will it be from a foreign source like Anonymous? Or an anonymous FBI employee?

I's likely to be an interesting next few months. Timing of document dumps is going to be everything.

"Someone will do a public dump of her emails. Question is, will it be the day before the Democrat convention, or the day after, or an October surprise? Will it be from a foreign source like Anonymous? Or an anonymous FBI employee?"

I have been critical of Trump and anybody I think will support an enlarged federal government.* But I have consistently espoused small government principles and stayed away from the horse race bull shit. Accordingly, nobody has accused me of Moby behavior or Democrat support.

Try standing on principle and leaving personal animus aside. You might be better for the exchange.

*buwaya puti linked an article on Canadian Yahoo (source??) earlier that has me reconsidering Trump. If he truly espouses smaller government views and follows them to roll back Leviathan, then I will be a full-on Trumpster Fire!!

Right after the first(?) debate w/Megyn Kelly (pre-haircut) I went to YouTube and watched several -- and I do mean several -- Apprentice episodes (non-celebrity) to watch his interactions with women. I saw no issues whatsoever. During one board meeting he had a "pahk de cah" slip. He caught it instantly, smiled, and said to the people in the boardroom (I'm paraphrasing -- not a direct quote): "did you hear that? That was the old Bronx in me slipping out" or something like that. It was endearing. He could laugh at himself and has zero shame about the fact he used to talk that way. Maybe it's why he says "industry" in an unusual way. He's worked on his speech so the Manhattanites could understand him. He is comfortable with himself and has none of that "Gee, I wish I had ancestors from the Mayflower and older money" baloney. He is no poser, no "wanna be." (If I could remember the season and episode of the "Bronx" moment, I'd cite it).

Call me crazy -- I will do it myself if he wins and disappoints me -- but I think the guy is authentic. And I truly believe he will not harm America domestically or abroad; that alone will be a welcome and major shift from the last 7.5 years. Trump won't cede an inch of American sovereignty to the UN or the IMF or the EU or any other entity. He will see right through this emerging IMF/SDR multi-country coalition bull isht.

Finally, I can't wait to see his Hillary sucker-punch.

@Godfather, I hope you'll change your mind. Because if Hill-O-Three wins, she will stack the Supreme Court, and what freedoms we do still have will be severed.

I can't stand Trump, but this ad is only for people who already can't stand Trump. So what. We're not voting for him. It is going to take a more clever and subtle approach to undo Trump's brand with those who are undecided and might be persuaded to vote against him. It seems like there could be a way to highlight the disconnect between the way he lives (as an elite) and what he preaches (populism). I'm not saying it's going to be easy.

"And if that happens, how many feminist Democrats will sit on their hands and not vote on election day? The creepy old Uncle Biden ads virtually write themselves."

It won't be Biden.

The D's establishment won't tolerate a Bernie nomination - he can't be relied upon to protect the right people. They'd be fine with Hillary - her corruption is so well-known, it's reliable (in fact, they've been banking on it for years), but they can also see that she is not going to beat Trump. She has way too much baggage and her persona isn't likeable enough to withstand the mockery that Trump will shower upon her. Negative ads, smears, viciousness - she could handle all these just fine (they are her native tongue) - but she will wither in the face of his mockery. No one likes her enough to be bothered by the kind of stuff that Trump will say, and it will quickly make her way too ridiculous to be a viable presidential candidate.

The left's power players have been waiting until Hillary puts Bernie down for good (they're probably pretty miffed that she hasn't finished the old kook already). Once that's done, they will quietly step aside and let the email investigation rid them of the stench of the House of C.

At which point, it seems like Joe Biden would be a natural choice; but he's going to have trouble making headway against Trump. On top of that, anointing good ole Joe will send the message to Bernie's supporters that the Dem's are totally screwing them (again) - driving them to either sit out in frustration or to support Trump as the only remotely anti-establishment option left. So, no, it won't be Biden.

It will be Warren.

Biden will decline to be considered, saying he's just not prepared to run a strong campaign, and everyone on the left will have a little "OMG!, What are we gonna do?" moment. Then Wasserman-Schultz will breathlessly announce that they are sooo lucky that Lizzy agreed to help them out by accepting the nomination.

The proggies will eat. it. up.

Warren will capture most of the youthful prog-soc zealots in Bernie's base, all of the crusty feminist crones in the Hillary camp, the bureaucracy, the elitist educated lefties ('cause, Harvard), the ethnic minorities (hey, she's one of us), the banksters (who, for form's sake, will make a pretense of being concerned), AND the #Nevertrumpers.

But the real reason she'll clobber Trump is that his heretofore successful tactic of mocking his opponents will fall utterly flat when used against Warren. People who laughed out loud when he said absolutely shocking things about Hillary will wonder why he's being so mean to this nice lady. And his support will crater.

Warren will waltz her way to victory and this country will have eight more years of an ungrounded, untested, unprepared liberal messiah in the White House. If you think Obama is a tiresome scold, just wait until Lizzy Warren peers over her granny glasses and takes us to task for not toeing the line (wherever the lefties happen to have moved it to that day).

Another problem: the twinkly music makes the ad seem like it's lightly poking fun at a guy with a huge grin on his face. None of the other people in the ad are smiling, so the cheery music puts the viewer into the position of the cheerful guy.

I'm never going to vote for Trump, so you'd think this ad would be aimed right at me. But it makes him seem like a fun guy who none of the squares understand. And *nobody* is a bigger square than Hillary Clinton.

Again, I'm not a Trump supporter. But I see the appeal of the persona. In his speeches he seems like a fun, good natured guy who's kind of a buffoon. And you're going to attack that with self righteous scolding? Haven't you seen any 80s era snobs vs slobs movies? The snobs didn't fare too well, IIRC.

The problem with Trump is that he actually is a buffoon who's unready to be president and he has a lot of unsavory followers. So I think the only attack is to force him to be specific and detailed, at which point it will be obvious that he's just making it up as he goes along.

Tactically, Trump has got a little bit of the old "Slick Willie" persona.

Once everybody saw Clinton as a likeable scumbag, it was hard to attack him for being a scumbag. Corruption? C'mon, you already knew he played it fast and loose. Philandering? Which one of the dozens of stories are you talking about?

If you see Trump as a cheesy reality TV star who doesn't mean half of what he says, how do you attack him for something he says? It's a real puzzle, and nobody's figured it out.

Trump reminds me of that energy absorbing monster from the first Star trek series. It ate entire planets and star systems. When a star ship fired photo torpedos into it, it only got stronger. This commercial is like a dozen photo torpedos shot right into his jaws and he will only get stronger. They need a better strategy and fast if they are going to take him down.

This suggests that Team Hillary has learned very little from watching the Trump phenomenon in the Republican primary. She really ought to get in some fresh blood that understands that Trump's appeal has much to do with the impression that he is different than the crapweasel Washington politicians. Congressional Republicans are not popular - why on earth try to make the case that Trump isn't liked by them?

If her team assumes all the old rules hold and tries to campaign as if this is Romney, McCain, either of the Bushes, or Dole, I think it is more likely than not she wakes up on Nov 9 wondering how on earth she lost to this man, same as all the Republicans this cycle have had to do.

Hillary is not a great candidate, and she tends to do worse the more visible she is. My strategy would be to craft a positive message, cut out all the women card/social issues activism, stay focused on nothing but jobs and economic opportunity, and not respond to Trump's provocations. Nothing will irritate him more than the sense that he's being ignored, and I think it is most likely that if he is indeed going to fall, it's going to be by his own doing, not Hillary's. She should just get out of the way and cease interfering. And hint to the media - this is also your best strategy as well if you want him to lose.

He has a funny story in there about a well qualified woman exec who was hired by a billionaire group in Silicon Valley to run a political fund. At the first meeting after she started, she commented, "What is the difference between a terrorist and a billionaire ? You can negotiate with a terrorist."

She was fired the next week. Donors of the kind of money we are talking about have their own agenda and it includes "free trade" and unlimited immigration. Including Muslims who might buy products sold by the donors companies.